1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the allegations made at the trial of the court, and is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as follows.

[Additional Part] The plaintiff's current contract public official provision does not include any guidelines as to whether the term of appointment expires, and the criteria and requirements for exclusion from reappointment and the prior notification procedure of the reasons therefor, unless there are any particular defects in relation to the appointment of the public official in special contract service, such as the plaintiff, and there is no provision regarding the procedure for remedy for unfair refusal of reappointment. Thus, it is argued unconstitutional. Thus, the contract public official system is introduced in terms of strengthening the expertise and competitiveness of the public service society and the efficient management of government human resources due to the opening of public service. Thus, the status relationship of the public official is naturally terminated when the employment period expires after the expiration of the employment period in accordance with the employment contract with the state, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, it is a free discretionary act according to the decision of the appointing authority. Thus, it is not unconstitutional since there is no such provision asserted by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.